Digital Repository Best Practices for Cultural Heritage Organizations

Introduction: Assumptions and DefinitionsThis white paper is based on knowledge and experience I have gained in digitalrepository work and digital repository community involvement over the pastdecade. The contents of this report could be backed up by citations to journalarticles and research papers. However, the intent is to offer practical advice for theComputer History Museum (CHM) to use in digital repository planning. Rather thaninterrupt the flow of the narrative with references, I have appended an annotatedbibliography. Thanks to Heather Yager for surveying the literature, collecting copiesof the resources, and extracting salient points from them.The term digital repository is used to mean a variety of things. In academicenvironments, digital repositories are often systems where researchers depositarticles and papers. In archives, digital repositories are most often systems tomanage digital assets‐‐some born digital such as email correspondence, and somedigital surrogates of other archival material such as photographs or documents.In museums, digital surrogates from the museums’ collections are commonly held indigital repositories. Some museums also collect born digital artifacts such as timebasedart or software. Sometimes these repositories include preservationcomponents, and sometimes they are focused on processing workflows. In certaincases, the repositories include “end user” access to the digital content, while in othersituations access might be provided by another separate system.For the purposes of this paper, and to meet CHM needs, we will define the digitalrepository as the systems and workflows that support digital asset management anddigital preservation. Although access to CHM digital collections is important, enduser access is not the focus of the digital repository planning project. Digital contentproduction such as creating digital surrogates of objects in CHM collections, orproduction of digital video content is also excluded from this report.I will begin the paper with background information about the history of digitalrepositories in cultural heritage organizations. This section will include lessonslearned over the past two decades, and current thinking about digital repositories.Then I will suggest practices that should serve CHM well as the Museum plans forthe next level of digital asset management and preservation for digital collections. Iwill present these recommendations within the context of emerging best practicesin the cultural heritage community.BackgroundOver the past two decades, leaders in museums, libraries, and archives haveemphasized the role cultural heritage organizations must play in the managementand preservation of digital collections, continuing the role they have long played inDigital Repository Best Practices Report Page 2 of 19Computer History Museum February 2012

designed to be more extensible, with application programming interfaces (APIs)that enable separate but related systems to share data. In addition, many opensource tools are available to fill specific requirements such as format verification orpackaging for ingest.Current best practice when building or selecting a digital repository system is toemphasize extensibility and flexibility. That way, as digital repository systemscontinue to mature, it is possible to swap out parts, without having to replace thewhole. More and more, digital repository developers are being asked to integrateexisting tools and services into workflows, and become active in the open sourcecommunities that enhance and maintain them.Establish risk assessment policies and procedures:Risk assessment policies and procedures must strike a balance to preserve what isinherently valuable while recognizing resource constraints.Risk assessment includes physical evaluation of digital material when it first arrivesat the CHM, and analysis of file formats. Physical evaluation is essential to determineif media is stable. It is also necessary for determining whether the data can be read.For example, it may be difficult to migrate data from an obsolete hand‐held device toa CHM storage system.Policies and procedures could set time limits for attempting to preserve data fromdonated devices, or could suggest seeking support for recovering the data throughoutsourced services when such a donation is accepted. In the mean time, bestpractice would be to store the obsolete device. Although the data it contains may bevaluable, migrating the data to the digital repository would become a lower priorityuntil resources could be obtained.File format risk assessment can inform the level of service the CHM defines forcertain kinds of digital content. The CHM may wish to establish a list of wellunderstoodfile formats such as those that are generated in‐house during mediaproduction or digitization. These file types would be considered low risk forsuccessful preservation. While CHM will almost certainly ingest other less wellknownfile formats (interactive games, obsolete software) the donor agreementsand associated service level agreements for these file types could state the riskassociated with preserving them. A basic preservation system is likely to be able tostore and retrieve files in a wide range of formats. Enhanced systems and serviceswould be needed to create emulation environments, or to forward‐migrate files.Digital preservation tools and frameworks offer criteria for digital collection riskassessment, pre‐and post‐ingest. Using these frameworks as a guide, it is importantto create local policies and procedure to assess risk levels for incoming objects andDigital Repository Best Practices Report Page 6 of 19Computer History Museum February 2012

collections. Risk assessment is important in prioritizing preservation treatment fordigital material.Prefer throughput over exhaustive up­front preparation (just in time, not justin case):Use collection policies to inform decisions about levels of treatment for digitalcollections.Early digital preservation system implementers learned that requiring extensivepreparation for digital objects before they can be deposited often translates intobacklogs of digital objects that are not under any kind of control or protection.Rather than expecting all objects to be reformatted, or described in detail,particularly when future use for the object may not be well understood, it is betterto ingest the objects using streamlined low‐barrier‐to‐entry processes. Often, thisinvolves little more than providing minimal level metadata to insure that objects canbe identified and retrieved, generating a unique identifier for each object, andvalidating, and virus‐checking files.Metadata StandardsConsider Dublin Core for descriptive metadata and PREMIS for preservationmetadata. Technical and structural metadata format choices can be based on what issupported by the digital repository systems that are selected.Metadata for digital repositories may vie with storage as the areas with the leastbest practices consensus. For descriptive and technical metadata, choose formatsthat meet management and access needs and that workflow tools support.It is important that metadata content standards be flexible enough to allow digitalcollections to be ingested and processed quickly, especially if the material isvulnerable (e.g. on unstable media). In these cases, minimal descriptive metadatasuch as title, creator, donor, and date, and a system generated unique identifier isenough to insure the material can be retrieved for further processing in the future.Thorough descriptive metadata for certain categories of digital assets, such asobjects that will be used in educational programs, or included in exhibits may berequired. However, expecting that all collections receive the same treatment couldbe an obstacle to timely ingest of at risk material.Descriptive metadata standards include Dublin Core, Metadata Object DescriptiveSchema (MODS), and Encoded Archival Description (EAD) for archival materials.Although a range of descriptive metadata formats have been developed forspecialized material, because of the diversity of CHM collections, the CHM would bebest served by choosing a flexible descriptive metadata format. Dublin Core wouldDigital Repository Best Practices Report Page 7 of 19Computer History Museum February 2012

e a good choice. In addition to being flexible, it is already in use at the CHM. If EADrecords are needed for shared access to archival collections, these records may needto be created in a system that is separate from the core digital repository system asnot all digital repository software packages support the EAD format.For technical metadata such as capture information, the Museum should implementsimilarly flexible policies. When digital surrogates are generated in‐house orthrough contracted agreements, capture information should be retained as technicalmetadata. In the case of donated objects or collections, this kind of informationshould be recorded if available. However, it may be more important to ingestwithout full technical metadata than to wait to ingest until this information could beobtained.The array of choices for storing technical metadata is even more confusing thanthose for descriptive metadata. Technical metadata may be stored in an xmldocument, or wrapped in a METS wrapper. In Fedora‐based systems, technicalmetadata can be stored in a “FOXML” datastream. Either option is perfectlyreasonable. The systems and software that are best suited to CHM requirements willlikely determine the technical metadata format.PREMIS is the de facto standard for preservation metadata and the Museum shouldplan to implement some version of PREMIS for the preservation system. Irecommend a lightweight PREMIS implementation such as the Stanford model.PREMIS supports a level of complexity in preservation metadata that would bedifficult to sustain. Best practice is to create local preservation policies andprocedures and document them within the PREMIS framework.Best practices for structural metadata may also vary, from none required for singleimages, to a range of solutions for representing complex relationships.Requirements are often based on what is needed for proper display and use of theobjects. Complex relationships can be recorded in different ways, depending on thesystem or workflow used for processing. For digital artifacts such as interactivegames, best practices have yet to be established.Many systems support METS for structural metadata, although Fedora‐basedsystems require METS packages to be broken apart into separate data streams foringest. Here again, best practice is to choose a system that will support the rangeand level of structural metadata needed for the digital repository; the metadataformat is less important than the information that can be stored within it. Figure 2:Metadata in the Workflow shows where different metadata formats and containerscomeinto play in a digital repository workflow.Digital Repository Best Practices Report Page 8 of 19Computer History Museum February 2012

Figure 2: Metadata in the workflowAt this point, the CHM can afford to be flexible in thinking about what metadataformats to implement. EAD may be required to make archival collectionsdiscoverable, but METS might not be needed for structural metadata, for example.As digital repository software is evaluated, CHM staff should make certain thesystem provides support for the level of structural metadata that is required in aformat that will be easy for other systems, such as the CHM website, to use.Validation and VerificationCollection policies should determine the level of format validation the digitalrepository supports. When the CHM controls production of the artifacts, such assurrogates of physical objects, automatic format validation should be part of theworkflow. Registries and validation tools for well‐known formats are available andcan be integrated into the digital repository workflow. For other collections such ashistoric software, format validation should not be required. Tools for checking donot necessarily exist, it would be expensive to produce them, and the software isunlikely to be rejected due to lack of validation. I therefore recommend that theMuseum plan to implement different levels of format validation for some collectiontypes than for others.Following best practices for ingest, it is important to check for viruses, performfixity checks on incoming files, and to generate a unique identifier for the object.Preservation PracticesDigital Repository Best Practices Report Page 9 of 19Computer History Museum February 2012

Unless future uses for digital objects are well understood, it is best to defer creationof emulation environments or other activities that involve research anddevelopment. While few organizations can afford to create emulation environmentsin operational workflows, as long as the objects are preserved, they can be retrievedfor enhancement later, when specific use cases arise.Align digital collection policies and procedures with policies and proceduresfor non­digital collections:Reference existing Museum policies and procedures when creating policies andprocedures for digital collection management and preservation to insure thatcollections in all areas are handled with the same level of attention.Particularly in smaller organizations, aligning digital collection policies andprocedures with existing policies and procedures can leverage scarce resources.Specialized systems will be needed to store digital assets, and asset managementsystems that are used for analog resources may not be extensible to digital assets.As a result, processing workflows for digital collections may differ from those foranalog resources.It may make sense to create and maintain separate documentation for digitalrepository systems, processes and procedures. Even so, the more similar workflowsand processes can be, the easier it is to cross‐train staff and provide flexibility forhandling both analog and digital collections, including providing metadata todiscovery and delivery systems.Make storage basics a high priority:It is imperative that all digital collections be migrated to a robust storage systemthat is backed up.Some CHM collections are currently at risk because they are not being stored onprofessional IT grade media. Before CHM will be ready to implement a digitalrepository, it is imperative that all digital collections be migrated to a robust storagesystem that is backed up, preferably to tape that is then stored in an off‐site location.Once this fundamental best practice is in place, the system can be enhanced withpreservation management capabilities.When selecting preservation software for the CHM, it may be necessary to considerproprietary solutions, even though open source is preferred. Specificrecommendations from the Storage Consultant will be useful in this area.Storage may be the area where best practices remain the least clear. That said, thefirst priority for a digital repository system is to insure that files are organized in away that makes retrieval possible at the object as well as the file level. In addition, aDigital Repository Best Practices Report Page 10 of 19Computer History Museum February 2012

egular and robust backup procedure using proven mainstream IT technologies andmedia such as data tape is critical to digital repository operation.At the next level, a storage system that includes preservation functions should beimplemented. Despite the growing popularity of cloud storage for personalcollections of music, photographs, and other data, preservation professionals havebeen slow to adopt cloud solutions, even for redundancy. Thus, current best practiceis to replicate data, preferably using different technology stacks to create each copy.There is no hard and fast rule about how many copies are enough and there is littlein the literature to suggest that three copies are better than two, for example.“Lots of copies keeps stuff safe”, the slogan behind the LOCKKSS acronym maydescribe a suitable practice for data that is already natively redundant, andrelatively small. Licensed text‐based content that the LOCKSS project has focused onis ubiquitous. A number of organizations can capture and replicate this data in apeer‐to‐peer network without much effort. The same strategy will not work forunique collections, especially collections involving large files.Consequently, best practice in this area must be informed by what is practical andaffordable for the organization. A preservation master on spinning disk or tape, andat least one other copy that is stored in a separate location, but is accessible by asystem that allows audit would meet minimum level requirements for apreservation system. Beyond that, questions about how many additional copies areneeded, and whether access copies such as lower resolution versions of image filesneed to be preserved must be considered in the context of organizational missionand resources.Establish a clear rights policy:The Computer History Museum must create rights policies consistent with riskassessment levels and resource allocation.Rights issues are complex. Although best practices can provide some guidance, theCHM must decide the level of risk it is willing to assume, what level of resources theorganization can dedicate to resolving rights questions, and how vulnerable theresources are.For example, will digital collections or commercial software that appear to havebeen copied be accepted? If the objects have no provenance, or the provenance isuncertain, will CHM ingest them for preservation but not provide access? Will rightsbe sought to copy software for preservation purposes, or will the CHM take theposition that copying for preservation is allowable?Digital preservation professionals argue that best practices from a preservationstandpoint make it important for organizations to preserve digital material, even ifDigital Repository Best Practices Report Page 11 of 19Computer History Museum February 2012

the rights to do so are not entirely clear. However, most people in the field recognizethat the organization’s legal advisors must make the final determination what theorganization’s policies should be.The Museum has already established rights policies and procedures within theGuidelines for Documenting Digital Exhibit Artifacts. These policies and proceduresare aligned with current best practices and could serve as a model for generalizedrights policies and procedures for the digital repository.ConclusionThere are not yet, and perhaps never will be a set of unified digital repository bestpractices. Organizational needs are too diverse to support a single group ofrecommendations that would function well in all environments. However, broadframeworks and reference models do provide overall guidance. Creating localpolicies and procedures that fit within general frameworks such as PLATTER andOAIS will insure that a digital repository meets functional requirements that areaccepted by the community. In addition, a modular design will create a digitalrepository that is sustainable and extensible. With preservation as a key service, it isalso imperative as a best practice, to implement a robust storage and backup systemfollowing professional IT practices.Beyond these fundamentals, best practices for digital repositories involve selectingsystems to support workflows for efficient and effective asset management andpreservation. This is where organizational needs must be translated into policiesand procedures for managing and preserving digital collections within the contextof the Museum’s mission.Digital Repository Best Practices Report Page 12 of 19Computer History Museum February 2012

Appendix: Annotated BibliographyDigital Repository best practices are still very much a work in progress. Although itmay appear that there is little consensus, best practices are emerging through theefforts of digital preservation pioneers. Based on this early experience, thecommunity has shifted from a focus on digital preservation to digital curation. Thisshift puts preservation into context with the full digital object lifecycle. Along withthis shift, best practices have become less absolute, and more situational. In thefollowing bibliography, the resources issued after about 2005 are more likely toreflect current thinking in the community than those produced before that date.Organizational web sitesThere is no one organization in charge of promulgating digital repository bestpractices for the cultural heritage community. However, a number of organizationsplay key roles. These organizations frequently post white papers on their web sitesand sometimes offer blogs and webinars on digital repository topics.The Library of Congress Digital Preservation web site links to white papers on arange of digital repository topics such as digital format sustainability and rights. TheLibrary of Congress also lists relevant conference and educational offerings on thissite, links to The Signal blog—a great resource for keeping up to date on digitalrepository issues. Library of Congress @ndiipp recent tweets appear on the websiteas well, highlighting timely topics of interest. Although focused on digitalpreservation programs in libraries and archives, the web site contains muchpractical advice of use to the broader cultural heritage community, and even toindividuals interested in preserving personal digital collections such asphotographs.Based in the UK, the Digital Curation Centre focuses on managing digital researchdata. However, their white papers and reference models can be helpful inunderstanding management and preservation choices for born‐digital content. DCCalso lists training opportunities, although their listings tend to be for events held inEurope.Traditionally associated with libraries, OCLC Research has expanded its mission toinclude archives and museums. Their focus is much broader than digital repositorymanagement, so mining the web site for relevant information can be somewhat timeconsuming. OCLC is a good resource for metadata standards information, and canalso be a useful launch point for information on standards for unique identifiers.Brian Lavoie has contributed to numerous articles and papers on the economics andsustainability of digital preservation. Reading a few of these recent reports canDigital Repository Best Practices Report Page 13 of 19Computer History Museum February 2012

enhance understanding of the ongoing nature of digital repository management andoperation.Before the Research Libraries Group (RLG) merged with OCLC, the twoorganizations jointly produced Trusted Digital Repositories: Attributes andResponsibilities. Although published in 2002, this white paper has informed manycurrent frameworks for establishing trust in repository operations and is stillconsidered a classic.The Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) is a membership organization aimedat academic libraries and information technology organizations. The ExecutiveDirector, Cliff Lynch, monitors issues of interest to these types of organization,including digital curation. Of late, CNI has focused significant attention onpreserving scientific data. However, earlier task force reports and papers onbuilding sustainable digital preservation solutions may be of interest. The web sitealso links to videos and podcasts of talks from CNI project briefings from CNImeetings held twice a year.Other notable resourcesEvery year, Charles W. Bailey, Jr. publishes a Digital Curation and PreservationBibliography. The 2010 edition cites over 500 selected resources, published from2000‐2010.Members of the Digital curation Google group discuss everything from specifictechnical implementations such as debugging the BagIt tool, to how the term“curation” has come into general parlance. Over 500 members strong, this list is theplace to be to learn about trending topics, upcoming training opportunities and toget advice from other members of the digital curation community.Selected material on specific topicsThe articles listed below informed the best practices recommendations in theDigital Repository Best Practices for Cultural Heritage Organizations report.Repository BasicsBall, A. (2010). Preservation and curation in institutional repositories (version 1.3).Edinburgh, UK: Digital Curation Centre.While this white paper focuses on preservation of scientific data, it provides a usefulreview of the state of digital repository development as of 2010. The paper isdescriptive rather than prescriptive, although it suggests preferences in some areassuch as metadata for complex objects by omitting some commonly used standards.Digital Repository Best Practices Report Page 14 of 19Computer History Museum February 2012

The report includes information about three specific repository solutions, EPrints,DSpace, and Fedora. It goes on to inventory digital preservation models such as OAIS,architectures, and planning tools, including PLATTER.The metadata section of the report includes information about format registries thatmight be of use when deciding which preservation formats to support for objects theCHM controls (see format verification section of Best Practices document). The articlecovers Dublin Core as a descriptive metadata option in the most detail. Predictably,PREMIS is emphasized for preservation metadata. Somewhat surprisingly, there is notmention of METS for complex metadata representation, with OAI­ORE the onlystandard that is described.The remainder of the paper reviews tools for extracting and capturing a range ofmetadata, from technical to descriptive. It goes on to discuss what might be calledlevels of preservation, from bit preservation to emulation to migration and wraps upwith an inventory of audit tools and resources for understanding costs and benefits ofdigital repositories.Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems. (2002). Reference model for anOpen Archival Information System (OAIS). Washington, DC: CCSDS.This reference model continues to define the essential functions a digital repositoryshould support.Cothey, V. (2010). Digital curation at Gloucestershire Archives: From ingest toproduction by way of trusted storage. Journal of the Society of Archivists. 31(2), p.207‐228.This article is an excellent how­to use case for using OAIS and PLATTER to implementa digital repository.The Shift from Preservation to CurationAbrams, S., Cruse, P., & Kunze, J. (2009). Preservation is not a place. Internationaljournal of digital curation, 4(1). Retrieved fromh ttp://www.ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/view/98The authors explain the design changes they are making in the California DigitalLibrary digital repository prompted by community shifts that emphasize curationrather than preservation.Lee, C.A. & Tibbo, H. (2007). Digital curation & trusted repositories. Journal of digitalinformation, 8(2). Retrieved fromh ttp://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/view/229/183Digital Repository Best Practices Report Page 15 of 19Computer History Museum February 2012

This article is an introduction to a special issue of JoDI. It puts digital curation incontext and explains the community shift from preservation to curation.Rubin, N. (2009). Preserving digital public television: Not just an archive. Librarytrends, 57(3). Retrieved from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/13605Specific to the television production industry, this article includes general informationabout the way moving to digital production causes a shift in thinking about preservingdigital video. The shift involves providing consistent access to what might previouslyhave been thought of as archival material. This reinforces the lifecycle management,or curation approach.The project was a pioneering effort to create file wrappers (structural metadata) fordigital video and recommend preservation metadata standards for this type ofmaterial. The experimental repository handled both high­resolution masters, and lowresolutiondistribution copies of each digital title. To meet the local needs of theproject, PBCore was used as the descriptive metadata format, PREMIS was used forpreservation metadata, METSRights was used for rights, and METS was used as thewrapper. These choices were presented in the context of this particular project, notnecessarily as a best practice for digital video curation. The article touches on rightsand sustainability issues but does not recommend best practices in either of theseareas.Best Practices for Establishing TrustJantz, R. & Giarlo, M. (2007). Digital archiving and preservation: Technologiesand processes for a trusted repository. Journal of archival organization. 4(1‐2) p.193‐21. doi:10.1300/J201v04n01_1Jantz and Giarlo put what it means to develop a trusted repository in context throughthe example of the Fedora­based preservation repository developed at Rutgers. Whilethey restrict their examples and discussion to surrogate digital objects, not borndigitalcontent, many of the solutions they suggest would be broadly applicable. Theymake the case that good storage policies need input from archivists and informationtechnology professionals, and emphasize the importance of persistent identifiers inestablishing authenticity, and reliability.Research Libraries Group. (2002). Trusted digital repositories: Attributes andresponsibilities. RLG: Mountain View, CA. Retrieved fromh ttp://www.oclc.org/research/activities/past/rlg/trustedrepositories.pdfAlthough this paper was written before the preservation to curation shift, and RLG isnow part of OCLC, this report stands as a useful framework for thinking about how anorganization can fulfill its responsibilities to the community it serves in terms ofpreservation services.Digital Repository Best Practices Report Page 16 of 19Computer History Museum February 2012

Rosenthal, C., Hutař, J. & Blekinge‐Rasmussen. (2008). Planning a Trusted DigitalRepository with PLATTER. Digital Preservation Europe. Retrieved fromhttp://www.slideshare.net/DigitalPreservationEurope/platter‐colin‐rosenthalpresentationThis slide presentation explains how the PLATTER framework can be used to establishorganizational policies and procedures to insure repository services are trustworthy.Trend toward Modular SolutionsCramer, T., & Kott, K. (2010). Designing and implementing second generation digitalpreservation services: A scalable model for the Stanford Digital Repository. D­LibMagazine, 16(9/10). Retrieved fromh ttp://www.dlib.org/dlib/september10/cramer/09cramer.htmlIn addition to presenting arguments for building modular digital asset managementsystems, this article makes the case for minimal treatment of some collections to insurethey can be ingested for preservation in a timely manner.Mikhail, Y., Adly, N., & Nagi, M. (2011). DAR: Institutional repository in action. In S.Gradmann, F. Borri, C. Meghini, & H. Schuldt (Eds.), Research and advancedtechnology for digital libraries. (pp. 348‐359). Berlin: Springer‐Verlag. Retrievedfromhttp://www.bibalex.org/isis/UploadedFiles/Publications/DLF36_DAR%20Institutional%20Repository%20Integration%20in%20Action.pdfBibliotheca Alexandrina (BA) also developed a modular solution for their “DigitalAsset Repository” (DAR). They translate the OAIS model into four somewhat differentlydivided components:• Digital Assets Factory (DAF) for digitization and ingestion,• Digital Assets Metadata (DAM) subsystem for metadata management,• Digital Assets Publishing (DAP) components to enable discovery and deliverysystems, and• Digital Assets Keeper (DAK) for object storage and versioning.The article explains how they implemented a repository, including architecture(Fedora­based) and metadata choices.Metadata ResourcesDonaldson, D., Conway, P. (2010). Implementing PREMIS: A case study of the FloridaDigital Archive. Library Hi Tech 28(2) p. 273‐28. doi 10.1108/0737883101104767While this article focuses on how developers at the Florida Center for LibraryAutomation implemented PREMIS when developing a preservation repository, itDigital Repository Best Practices Report Page 17 of 19Computer History Museum February 2012

provides context for understanding PREMIS as an information model. PREMIS itselfdoes not dictate preservation policy, nor does is offer implementation solutions. Itsimply provides a framework for expressing preservation and other metadata(including rights metadata) in xml.PREMIS Editorial Committee. (2011). Introduction and supporting material fromPREMIS Data Dictionary for Preservation Metadata. Version 2.1. Library of Congress:Washington, DC. Retrieved fromh ttp://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/v2/premis‐report‐2‐1.pdfBy removing nearly 200 pages from the full data dictionary, the Editorial Committeehas created a manageable length document that explains how to use PREMIS forpreservation metadata. The report goes far beyond the practical application ofPREMIS. It puts PREMIS in the context of digital preservation, defines preservationconcepts, and includes a preservation glossary.Riley, J. (2009). Seeing standards: A visualization of the metadata universe.Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Libraries.Retrieved from http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/~jenlrile/metadatamap/This poster maps all the various metadata standards in use in various culturalheritage sectors. It gives a flavor for the range of choices available. The accompanyingglossary defines the standards and provides information about what standards bodiesare responsible for maintaining them. Helpful for identifying metadata options.Smith‐Yoshimura, K. (2007). RLG Program Descriptive Metadata Practices Report.Dublin, OH: OCLC Programs and Research. Retrieved fromh ttp://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2007/2007‐03.pdfAn inventory of systems, descriptive metadata structures and content standards usedby RLG members describes a field without much cohesion, although Dublin Core doesseem to be emerging as the most prevalent non­MARC metadata structure.Wilson, A. (2010). How much is enough: Metadata for preserving digital data.Journal of library metadata. 10, p. 205‐217. doi 10.1080/19386389.2010.506395Wilson writes with a view towards recommending preservation metadata standardsfor preserving digital data based on sound archival record­keeping practices. Hecritiques PREMIS for the shortfalls he sees in the standard’s capacity to handleprovenance information, which he sees as critical to establishing authenticity fordigital objects. He is also critical of PREMIS and a particular implementation ofPREMIS in METS for falling short of what is needed to prove reliability, usability andintegrity. In his view, the metadata model should make provision for access. Noteveryone would agree with this approach, seeing other systems outside thepreservation system as the place where discovery and delivery metadata is maintainedand backed up, not necessarily preserved.Digital Repository Best Practices Report Page 18 of 19Computer History Museum February 2012

Ide, M. & Weisse, L. (2006). Recommended appraisal guidelines for selecting borndigitalmaster programs for preservation and deposit with the Library of Congress.Boston: WGBH. Retrieved fromhttp://cn2.wnet.org/thirteen/ptvdigitalarchive/files/2009/10/appraisal‐guidelines‐final.pdfAssessment, Appraisal, Upstream RequirementsWhile developed for a specific appraisal process, this white paper contains backgroundmaterial on the archival appraisal process in general. It also puts appraisal of publictelevision programming in context with digital moving image and audio material. Itprovides a useful model for creating appraisal policies and procedures for complex,born­digital content.Marmor, J., Van Malssen, K. & Goldman, D. (2011). A preservation­compliant mediaasset management system for television production. New York: WNET. Retrievedfrom http://www.thirteen.org/ptvdigitalarchive/uncategorized/designing‐anddeploying‐a‐preservation‐compliant‐media‐asset‐management‐system‐fortelevision‐production/127/This white paper makes recommendations for combining preparation of media files forpreservation with the television production process. It is based on the experience ofingesting digital output from television production into the New York Universitypreservation repository. The NYU repository contains diverse content, but requiresthat metadata for ingest be presented in a standard format. The incoming metadatafrom different television production workflows required laborious re­work for ingest.The resulting recommendation was to push requirements for standardizationupstream, suggesting that production workflows should include creation and captureof standardized technical and descriptive metadata. Creating incentives for productionto take on the additional work of creating improved metadata could proveproblematic unless resources for production and preservation are viewed holistically,from a resource standpoint.Ross, H. & Thompson, D. (2010). Automating the appraisal of digital materials.Library Hi Tech. 28(2) p. 313‐32. doi 10.1108/0737883101104770On the way to exploring whether or not automated appraisal of digital materials isfeasible, this article makes a number of sensible preservation policy recommendations.The authors note that following sound archival principles is essential to goodpreservation policy and that OAIS should be used as a digital preservation framework.They suggest that both intellectual appraisal, evaluating the intrinsic value of thematerial, and technical appraisal, the question of whether the organization can affordto preserve it, should be considered. While tools such as those developed through thePLANETS project, and JHOVE can be used for format validation, integrating such toolsinto an appraisal workflow involves a complex set of tasks by experienced developers.Digital Repository Best Practices Report Page 19 of 19Computer History Museum February 2012